Specifically I would call it [i][b]conservative technocracy[/b][/i] or possibly [i][b]free market technocracy[/b][/i] and it's all based on efficiency (and elimination of corruption). If it were based on central power, it would not be a free market technocracy. So before I list my arguments, I'm going to briefly explain what version of technocracy I'm advocating (most technocrats are socialists but I'm not advocating socialism). Essentially there would be no democracy and no politicians in this kind of government. If you work for an authoritative position in the government you have a single task (as opposed to a politician who must be educated on all fronts) and you are, of course, hired not elected. In this technocracy, corporations are still led by the private sector because it is empirically true that command economies don't function as well as free market economies. [b]My arguments:[/b] [u]>Democracy doesn't exist and is very hard to achieve.[/u] I'm going to speak in reference to American democracy for this thread but it should blend well with other democratic countries as well. Essentially we believe that the people have power, but we don't really. We believe we have the power to elect politicians, but the politicians are not looking out for our best interests. Society has evolved in which the most ruthless and convincing are elected rather than the most capable and committed. This is because the powerful just have too much influence over society. And so, those elected into power benefit the powerful people first and the common people second. You can look to the very common occurrence of buying politicians as a reference to my argument. [u]>Even if we could attain democracy, it's not something we would want.[/u] Say the powerful no longer have the enormous influence over society as they do today, would we really be in a better position? The common people may be able to vote for politicians who look after their best interests but the people don't know what their best interests are. The masses aren't bright and they're not going to elect in the right people for the job. You can argue that democracy would work if the people were smart, but for now that's just not a realistic scenario. [u]>Technocracy reduces corruption.[/u] I'm not saying that corruption would be completely eliminated, but it would be far less potent than what we have today. This is because in a technocracy workers are hired for a single task. In a democracy, politicians must be educated on all subjects. The theory is that if you only have one responsibility, you are less likely to -blam!- up and sell out. Politicians aren't going to care about every issue and if a powerful individual asks them to reconsider their opinion on something they don't care much for, they're far more likely to do it. Limiting one's responsibilities increases their chance of succeeding and doing well, that is the underlying point. [u]>There are objectively more efficient and ethical solutions to problems than others.[/u] It is believed that all possible solutions are equally considerable and that we should let the majority decide which they like best. As long as we all agree that human flourishing is our objective, then it is better to let expert individuals figure out what is the best possible route to take. Decision making must be left up to experts, not the masses. Of course the masses should be able to bear witness to these decisions and freely speak their minds upon them, but it just isn't possible or preferable to give them the power to make the decisions themselves. [b]Counter-arguments:[/b] [u]>China is technocratic and they're one of the most corrupt countries in the world.[/u] China doesn't serve as a good comparison because its objective is not human flourishing, nor do they have transparency, reduced responsibility, and a proper free market. [u]>Wouldn't the masses resist to their right to vote being taken away?[/u] This technocratic government would be very transparent, and many efforts would be made to ensure the people could voice their concerns, suggestions, and ideas.